arXiv:2610.01938v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Exam-style accuracy does not establish whether large language models (LLMs) reason well over clinical records. We define clinical reasoning as integr...
The paper introduces a retrieval‑augmented multi‑agent framework that automatically generates instance‑specific evaluation rubrics for medical language models. By retrieving authoritative medical evidence, decomposing it into atomic facts, and combining these with user interaction constraints, the system produces fine‑grained criteria that outperform GPT‑4o on HealthBench and LLMEval‑Med. The generated rubrics also guide response refinement, improving medical LLM output quality by 9.2%.
arXiv:2607. 02175v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multiple-choice medical benchmarks are increasingly saturated, and recent rubric-based evaluations such as HealthBench have shown that open-ended clinical performance is far from solved - its "Hard" subset top score remains 32%.
arXiv:2609.12822v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Blinded physician evaluation has been considered by many to be the gold standard for assessing clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs)....
arXiv:2606. 29876v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern large language models (LLMs) reach 60-70% diagnostic accuracy on complex clinical case benchmarks, but accuracy alone cannot distinguish stable clinically-grounded reasoning from pattern matching.
arXiv:2609.14819v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have a growing range of applications in medicine, and their evaluation is critical for ensuring they provide benefit and...
arXiv:2509. 02594v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on their ability to generate high-quality, accurate, situationally aware answers to clinical questions requires going beyond conventional benchmarks to assess how these systems behave in complex, high-stakes clinical scenarios.
arXiv:2608. 16643v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated detection of errors in clinical documentation is a promising application of large language models (LLMs), yet decisions to deploy such models rest on benchmarks that evaluate each clinical note in isolation.
Automated detection of errors in clinical documentation is a promising application of large language models (LLMs), yet decisions to deploy such models rest on benchmarks that evaluate each clinical note in isolation. Error-detection benchmarks are typically constructed by injecting errors into notes, such that each erroneous note has a natural counterpart.
arXiv:2608. 15382v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for healthcare decision support, but their evaluations still reward single-answer accuracy rather than reasoning about interventions, mechanisms, harms, evidence, and uncertainty.
arXiv:2608.15382v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for healthcare decision support, but their evaluations still reward single-answer accuracy r...
The UIC-AIHealth4All system was presented for the ArchEHR-QA 2026 shared task on grounded question answering from electronic health records. It participated in evidence identification, answer generation, and answer‑evidence alignment, using an answer‑first pipeline that generates candidate answers with cited note sentences before classifying the full evidence set. The system ranked third in evidence identification, ninth in answer generation, and fifth in answer‑evidence alignment, and a linguistic analysis showed its outputs were harder to read than clinician‑authored references, highlighting the need for readability optimization in clinical NLP.